Prior to the last Australian election the opposition promised to abolish Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, the section which suppressed debate on public policy so long as some
whiney thin skinned whinger individual felt themselves insulted, humiliated, offended or intimidated on the basis of ethnicity or race.
However, as a result of the level of objection, by people who would never vote for this government anyway, the Prime Minister yesterday announced that this promise would be dropped.
Last night I sent the following email to my local Liberal Party MP:
I voted Liberal at the last Federal election happy in the knowledge that the hateful imposition on free speech, Section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, was to be abolished.
I am bitterly disappointed that the Party is failing to live up to its name and follow through on this commitment. That the Party has capitulated to the bigots and hate groups who wish to control what Australians may be permitted to say and think leaves me wondering if principle is an issue any longer.
The main problem with this legislation, apart from its mere existence, is the discriminatory manner in which it is applied. It is used to close down opinion as expressed by your natural supporters, such as Andrew Bolt, but your opponents, such as the now exposed Judeophobic Mike Carlton, are free to say as they wish.
That principle is not a prime motivator of the Party I now have to accept, but that you don’t act to support those who support you is a further disappointment.
Please be advised, I will, in future, be supporting and promoting the Liberal Democratic Party.
A joke doing the rounds – People voted Liberal Democrat falsely thinking they were voting for the Liberal Party, others voted for the Liberal Party, falsely thinking they were voting for a liberal party.
Truth is often found in humour.
This morning I received the following reply:
Dear Mr Cats,
Thank you for your email regarding section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. Mrs Andrews understands your concerns and has requested that I reply to you on her behalf.
Please be assured that Mrs Andrews respects the points you have raised and appreciates the time you have taken to share your thoughts on this matter.
To which I replied – in my anger:
Thank you for a reply so devoid of content, and so meaningless, that even to send it was an insult.
A couple of minutes ago, I received the following – polite, courteous, and quite reasonable in its response:
Dear Mr Cats,
I apologies if my previous email offended you.
It was intended to inform you that indeed your email had been received by the McPherson electorate office and your thoughts and comments had been drawn to Mrs Andrews’s attention.
Rather than replying with a standard email to confirm receipt of your correspondence I intended to convey the appreciation that Mrs Andrews has for the time you had taken to share your feedback on this matter.
With your approval we can send your email directly to Senator Brandis. However, your feedback has already been raised directly.
Please accept my sincerest apologies if my actions have offended you in any way.
Still, I remain enraged at yet another failure of liberal principles by this disappointing government.